Since I noticed this trend, I am appalled by its pervasiveness. At least half of the women I see are wearing jeans.

Jeans are a fitting feminist symbol. They are farmworkers' and miners' clothes. Feminism is an invention of the central bankers who also created and financed the socialist and communist movements as bait to control people through government (which they control.)

By wearing jeans, women are signalling loyalty to this drab unisex proletarian vision, where women work like men, look like men, and fornicate like men (i.e. dogs.)

Can it be any more obvious? If the sexes dress alike, it is because they are becoming alike.

Often I see married couples clad in blue denim, him and hers. Occasionally there is an eldest daughter already promised to the cult of androgyny.

The first time this article appeared, I got a storm of criticism from women who say jeans can be feminine. Yes, if you are incredibly sexy in the first place, (but you'd look good in anything.) Ladies, jeans (and pants in general) emphasize the caboose. Very few women should do this.

Men, a woman wearing jeans is a red flag that you might be dealing with "GID" --"gender identity disorder." Her jeans are saying: "I don't want to be a woman. I don't want to look good for men. I fear and distrust men. I want male prerogatives. I want to look like a man. I want to be a man."

Feminism which espoused "women's rights" actually has driven femininity underground, torn the sexes asunder, and stripped woman of recognition for being wives and mothers, roles essential to their own fulfillment, to men, and to children and society.

Young women were told they were rebelling against oppressive patriarchy and inequality and all things bad. They never imagined they were betrayed by feminist teachers and politicians, intent on breaking up the family and abandoning us to State and corporate control.

They never imagined that the "women's movement" was inspired and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation as part of their ongoing social engineering program. Google "Women's Studies" and "Rockefeller Foundation" and you'll get 93,000 hits. Do you really think the world's biggest monopoly capitalists, who fund Planned Parenthood, birth control and eugenic research, don't have an ulterior motive for feminism?

The Rockefellers are central bankers. In the words of insider Carroll Quigley, their ultimate goal is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled ...by the central banks...acting in concert." ( Tragedy and Hope, 324)

Under the guise of defending homosexual rights, heterosexuals are under ruthless and hateful psychological attack in the mass media and from government. In the UK, Australia and California, the terms "mom and dad" have been banned from schools and children are encouraged to experiment with homosexuality. They want us to be homosexual in the sense that gays usually have sex but don't marry and have families. They want to destroy the family because lonely confused people are easier to manipulate. This is the real story behind the "sexual revolution."

There is a Stalinist feminist stigma against looking feminine. Hopefully the popularity of "Mad Men" and the beauty of Don Draper's wife Betty wearing summer dresses will bring feminine attire back.

Truly liberated women can make a statement by wearing a skirt or dress. They can show they aren't afraid of men, and may actually like them. Christine, a Toronto woman, does this and gets a very positive response:

"Several years ago, I gave up dressing like a man for religious reasons (and no, I am not a Muslim, although it is rather peculiar to see Muslim women in blue jeans and head scarves.) Since the traditional garb of a Western woman is a skirt or dress... I try to wear that. And I do try to dress neatly. When I made this decision, I didn't think about how it would affect men. Nevertheless, its effect on men has been most touching. It brings out the best in them and they seem to like it. Some are even vocal in their approval; only one has said he disapproved."

Men should politely voice approval and support of women who are dressed in a feminine way.

There is nothing more beautiful than a women wearing a summer dress. I can still remember a young woman I saw five years ago wearing a frock. That's how powerful femininity is. Let's not let highly-paid pious feminist and lesbian "change agents" destroy it. It's time for real women to relegate jeans to garden work.

This article has it all. :D

Henry Makow (http://www.henrymakow.com/post_7.html)

linda22003

10-07-2009, 10:52 AM

<sigh....> THIS is end of the world stuff, and the demise of Gourmet magazine is questioned???

It must be nice to be a mod. :rolleyes: :p

Gingersnap

10-07-2009, 11:00 AM

<sigh....> THIS is end of the world stuff, and the demise of Gourmet magazine is questioned???

It must be nice to be a mod. :rolleyes: :p

My thread has direct connections to commies, the NWO, and central banking (no doubt controlled by the Jooooos!). Plus, there is a subtle you'll-burn-in-Hell flavor to it. Your thread was about the demise of a cupcake magazine. :p

Rockntractor

10-07-2009, 11:03 AM

My thread has direct connections to commies, the NWO, and central banking (no doubt controlled by the Jooooos!). Plus, there is a subtle you'll-burn-in-Hell flavor to it. Your thread was about the demise of a cupcake magazine. :p
Hmm, cupcake magazine? Where have I heard cupcake lately?

Umm can't this website stick to its CONSERVATIVE values and ban the posting of lewd or
obscene photos? Can't we leave this junk to the liberals? I'm sure there are a lot of Christians on this forum...I don't think they'd like seeing pictures of halfnaked girls pop up in the discussion, especially if they have kids in the room
etc.

Please let's be the decent underground forum!

linda22003

10-08-2009, 07:38 AM

Umm can't this website stick to its CONSERVATIVE values and ban the posting of lewd or
obscene photos? Can't we leave this junk to the liberals? I'm sure there are a lot of Christians on this forum...I don't think they'd like seeing pictures of halfnaked girls pop up in the discussion, especially if they have kids in the room
etc.

Please let's be the decent underground forum!

Oh, you ARE new here, aren't you? :p

Gingersnap

10-08-2009, 10:14 AM

Umm can't this website stick to its CONSERVATIVE values and ban the posting of lewd or
obscene photos? Can't we leave this junk to the liberals? I'm sure there are a lot of Christians on this forum...I don't think they'd like seeing pictures of halfnaked girls pop up in the discussion, especially if they have kids in the room
etc.

Please let's be the decent underground forum!

What you saw posted is about at the outer limits of what our Forum rules allow. One of the guys involved in that little Daisy Dukes conversation is actually a pretty strong Christian and both of them are conservative.

You'll find that CU is fairly strict on the nekkid pic/profanity thing. We don't bar every curse word and every pinup pic but they do have to be on point in some manner. ;)

PoliCon

10-08-2009, 10:20 AM

Umm can't this website stick to its CONSERVATIVE values and ban the posting of lewd or
obscene photos? Can't we leave this junk to the liberals? I'm sure there are a lot of Christians on this forum...I don't think they'd like seeing pictures of halfnaked girls pop up in the discussion, especially if they have kids in the room
etc.

Please let's be the decent underground forum!

Neither being a conservative nor being a Christian requires one to be UPTIGHT! :p

noonwitch

10-08-2009, 12:27 PM

I thought blue jeans were sort of a capitialistic icon. Wearing designer jeans is a statement of either wealth or stupidity (or both).

Gingersnap

10-08-2009, 12:40 PM

I thought blue jeans were sort of a capitialistic icon. Wearing designer jeans is a statement of either wealth or stupidity (or both).

The blue jean fad was firmly grounded in an attempt by intellectuals to showcase solidarity with the working class and poor. The hippies took that political statement and turned it into a lifestyle choice to show their indifference to corporate culture. Only then did the designers get into the picture with ridiculous price tags.

Class warfare, intellectuals, and cut-throat snobbery are just part of the leftie 'Circle-of-Life'. :p

ExLiberal

10-08-2009, 05:13 PM

Neither being a conservative nor being a Christian requires one to be UPTIGHT! :p

True, being a conservative does not, but being a Christian definitely requires modesty and abstinence from obscenity and filthy jokes. It's not being judgmental, it's just plain Scripture-based truth! Christians have always fought against pornography, sexual immorality, and immodesty (the latter 2 being condemned in the bible) so I think it's a legitimate point to raise. The bible also condemns men who lust over women who aren't their wives....so shouldn't a Christian try not to cause a fellow christian to stumble into sin? No doubt this picture will incite lust in some men. If this isn't a Christian forum I understand there don't hve to be Christian-based guidelines...but I'm just sayin'.

PoliCon

10-08-2009, 05:30 PM

True, being a conservative does not, but being a Christian definitely requires modesty and abstinence from obscenity and filthy jokes. It's not being judgmental, it's just plain Scripture-based truth! Christians have always fought against pornography, sexual immorality, and immodesty (the latter 2 being condemned in the bible) so I think it's a legitimate point to raise. The bible also condemns men who lust over women who aren't their wives....so shouldn't a Christian try not to cause a fellow christian to stumble into sin? No doubt this picture will incite lust in some men. If this isn't a Christian forum I understand there don't hve to be Christian-based guidelines...but I'm just sayin'.

Who's standard of Obscenity? The puritanical standard? Have you read your scriptures? You might want to read the Song of Solomon and the Psalms again -

SONG OF SOLOMON:

#

Song of Solomon

# "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine." A fitting beginning for a pornographic poem. 1:2

# "He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts." 1:13

# "I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste." 2:3

# "His left hand is under my head and his right hand doth embrace me." She asks not to be disturbed "till he please." 2:6-7

# Our heroine takes her lover into her mother's bedroom and asks not to be disturbed "till he please." 3:4-5

You're joking, right? So you think pornography is a blessing from God? God made women to look beautiful for thir HUSBANDS, not for some random perverts to fornicate to. If you honestly think that being against pornography is "puritanical", why don't you try reading, oh, I dunno, every epistle in the new testament that talks about abstaining from sexual immorality, fornication, lust, etc. Do you think Jesus was being "puritanical" when he said "any man who looks at a woman with lust in his eyes commits adultery"? Would you sit there and mock Jesus for being too "uptight"? And are you honestly claiming the Song of Solomon is akin to harlots showing off their private parts to incite the lust of men they don't even know....many of whom are married? Do you not even know the true spiritual meaning of the Song of Solomon? It wasn't so God could have a bunch of people fapping off to His word. Don't kid yourself. Using the SoS to justify sexual immorality is the oldest trick in the book. People use passages in the bible to justify almost every sin that God has condemned. Homosexuality, suicide, abortion, polygamy, cursing...you name it. Because I guess God is too "puritanical" for them. Sexual passion is meant to be a sacred bond between husband and wife, and ONLY husband and wife, and all throughout the entire bible, God condemns people for engaging in fornication and adultery (both of which pornography is) and to make it even MORE clear, in the NT, Jesus VERY PLAINLY says that it is NOT just physical actions that constitute adultery....but THOUGHTS and lusts of the heart as well. You cannot use one book in bible with a very special spiritual meaning to justify things that God has condemned ALL throughout the rest of the book. You can't use God to contradict God. Sorry.

PoliCon

10-08-2009, 10:20 PM

You're joking, right? So you think pornography is a blessing from God? God made women to look beautiful for thir HUSBANDS, not for some random perverts to fornicate to. If you honestly think that being against pornography is "puritanical", why don't you try reading, oh, I dunno, every epistle in the new testament that talks about abstaining from sexual immorality, fornication, lust, etc. Do you think Jesus was being "puritanical" when he said "any man who looks at a woman with lust in his eyes commits adultery"? Would you sit there and mock Jesus for being too "uptight"? And are you honestly claiming the Song of Solomon akin to harlots showing off their private parts to incite the lust of men they don't even know....many of whom are married? Do you not even know the true spiritual meaning of the Song of Solomon? It wasn't so God could have a bunch of people fapping off to His word. Don't kid yourself. Using the SoS to justify sexual immorality is the oldest trick in the book. People use passages in the bible to justify almost every sin that God has condemned. Homosexuality, suicide, abortion, polygamy, cursing...you name it. Because I guess God is too "puritanical" for them. Sexual passion is meant to be a sacred bond between husband and wife, and ONLY husband and wife, and all throughout the entire bible, God condemns people for engaging in fornication and adultery (both of which pornography is) and to make it even MORE clear, in the NT, Jesus VERY PLAINLY says that it is NOT just physical actions that constitute adultery....but THOUGHTS and lusts of the heart as well. You cannot use one book in bible with a very special spiritual meaning to justify things that God has condemned ALL throughout the rest of the book. You can't use God to contradict God. Sorry.

Pornography? Who said anything about pornography? Or fornication? If you think a pic of a girl in short is porn - you're a bit puritanical.

And FYI - I am married very happily to the love of my life and we have a sex life to make porn stars jealous. We both devoutly Christian to the point that we have both served in foreign missions and are extremely active in our church. What you are not grasping is that we do not need to be prudes or puritanical to be pure. God does not want us to be afraid of sex. He does not want us to demonize it and stigmatize it and think of it as dirty. He made it enjoyable for a reason!

Ree

10-08-2009, 10:22 PM

You're joking, right? So you think pornography is a blessing from God? God made women to look beautiful for thir HUSBANDS, not for some random perverts to fornicate to. If you honestly think that being against pornography is "puritanical", why don't you try reading, oh, I dunno, every epistle in the new testament that talks about abstaining from sexual immorality, fornication, lust, etc. Do you think Jesus was being "puritanical" when he said "any man who looks at a woman with lust in his eyes commits adultery"? Would you sit there and mock Jesus for being too "uptight"? And are you honestly claiming the Song of Solomon akin to harlots showing off their private parts to incite the lust of men they don't even know....many of whom are married? Do you not even know the true spiritual meaning of the Song of Solomon? It wasn't so God could have a bunch of people fapping off to His word. Don't kid yourself. Using the SoS to justify sexual immorality is the oldest trick in the book. People use passages in the bible to justify almost every sin that God has condemned. Homosexuality, suicide, abortion, polygamy, cursing...you name it. Because I guess God is too "puritanical" for them. Sexual passion is meant to be a sacred bond between husband and wife, and ONLY husband and wife, and all throughout the entire bible, God condemns people for engaging in fornication and adultery (both of which pornography is) and to make it even MORE clear, in the NT, Jesus VERY PLAINLY says that it is NOT just physical actions that constitute adultery....but THOUGHTS and lusts of the heart as well. You cannot use one book in bible with a very special spiritual meaning to justify things that God has condemned ALL throughout the rest of the book. You can't use God to contradict God. Sorry.
Take a chill pill....

PoliCon

10-08-2009, 10:24 PM

Take a chill pill....

She doesn't know any better.

Rockntractor

10-08-2009, 10:24 PM

I shower naked!

PoliCon

10-08-2009, 10:25 PM

I shower naked!

I shower naked - with my WIFE!!!:eek: and on that note I'm gonna go fornicate with my wife!

Rockntractor

10-08-2009, 10:33 PM

I shower naked - with my WIFE!!!:eek: and on that note I'm gonna go fornicate with my wife!
Sometimes we do it with the lights on!

Gingersnap

10-08-2009, 10:38 PM

I can see that I have to remind everyone that substantially new topics interjected into old topics require their own, new threads.

Surely someone with a dog in this fight be will kind enough to start a new thread in GD or the Whiny Zone or elsewhere.

I'm depending on the kindness of strangers here because none of us wants me to dust off the Sword of Righteous Fury and start.......editing.

Either get back on topic or start a new thread about the mainstreaming of female objectification and the general acceptance of vulgar, crude, and/or profane language in society today. This would be a fascinating thread and one I would participate in with pleasure - if it was in another Forum. ;)

Rockntractor

10-08-2009, 10:48 PM

Yes dear!

Rockntractor

10-08-2009, 11:23 PM

Although I enjoy woman in blue jeans I think the cutoff age should be 30. I’ve always liked a pretty girl in a pretty dress. At any special occasion or church I prefer that woman dress like ladies but you see it less and less all the time. You also see less men in church wearing suits, to me it shows a lack of respect to wear everyday street clothes for special occasions or church.

ExLiberal

10-08-2009, 11:30 PM

Unbelievable. Okay obviously you'll believe whatever you want to believe but before you start with the typical "she doesn't know any better"...why don't you go read through the epistles and count the number of times they talk about fleeing sexual immorality. Let me ask you something, dear liberated Christian, why just why, in your unpuritanical enlightened analysis of scripture, do you suppose God told women to be chaste and modest? Do you think he might not like immodesty? Just maybe? Or is God just talking to hear himself talk. If you honestly think that a girl with half her breasts showing, half her butt showing, shorts all the way up to her crotch and her midriff showing is "Christian"....then um, I guess there's really nothing I can say to you. You are mocking God if you think immodesty is "good" and modesty is "puritanical". It's becoming increasingly common for Christians to start contradicting and mocking several messages from the bible because they don't fit their own lusts and preferences. If I wanna believe in evolution, I'll try and find every possible passage in the book to defend my belief, regardless of what God plainly says in Genesis. Because after all, I am Man, and God is simply god, and I know more than him, because my heart (which God calls desperately wicked and deceitful) tells me so. I mean why resort to the scriptures for answers? It's just God's word. Human reasoning and feelings are sooo much better.

If you wanna blow off everything God says about modesty, chasity, purity, and holiness....mock it all as "old-fashioned" and "puritanical"...go for it. You reap what you sow. But just remember the bible says the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it? You might want to open your bible and begin reading about what God thinks of sexual immoralty and MODESTY. If you think the pictures you posted are God-pleasing....someone needs to rethink his spiritual position. It reall doesn't matter how many missions you go on or how many people you preach to....if you don't obey God's commands...all else is worthless.

Let's just do some reasoning here. Will you admit that fornication is a sin, and that, as God said, fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God? If so, will you admit that Jesus wasn't lying when he said sin starts in the heart, and it is not just having physical sex with a woman who's not your wife that's a sin....but even LUSTING after her within your heart? If so, will you admit that someone who looks at porn (or to be more politically correct for you...sexy naked women) and lusting is a sin...based on the above? And if so, will you admit that those who do so (without repenting) will not inherit the kingdom of God? Or...do you want to play the semantics game....and spew out things like "well God technically didnt say pornography!" or "well half a breast isn't a whole breast so it doesn't count as immodest!" or "well it doesn't count if the fornicating is done through a screen and not in real life!" etc etc etc

You can stretch it as much as you want to fit your own enlightened "modern Christian" theology, but the above photos are without doubt offensive to both God and true Christians who actually BELIEVE God when he says to be discreet, holy, and pure. I can't believe you just sit here and mock what GOD himself has said, all the while callin yourself a "conservative Christian". No wonder ubelievers these days are always calling Christians hypocritical. Hey Ted Haggard after all was just expressing his "unpuritanical" views on a male crack-selling prostitute! But shame on me, for thinking what he did was a sin. Don't I know God loves sexual freedom? How dare I.

True, sex is not something to be disgusted at...but cherished. Sex is a holy act of love and passion between MAN AND WIFE, not man and playboy model on the Internet. Any sexual activity, be it physical or mental, that occurs outside the marriage bed is a sin. And my dear christian, it is not some angry puritanical fanatic who says this- but God himself, in his word. I'm simply repeating it. But don't take my word for it...open the bible and read for yourself. And be open to being convicted, don't just try to believe whatever you want to believe.

Rockntractor

10-08-2009, 11:34 PM

Unbelievable. Okay obviously you'll believe whatever you want to believe but before you start with the typical "she doesn't know any better"...why don't you go read through the epistles and count the number of times they talk about fleeing sexual immorality. Let me ask you something, dear liberated Christian, why just why, in your unpuritanical enlightened analysis of scripture, do you suppose God told women to be chaste and modest? Do you think he might not like immodesty? Just maybe? Or is God just talking to hear himself talk. If you honestly think that a girl with half her breasts showing, half her butt showing, shorts all the way up to her crotch and her midriff showing is "Christian"....then um, I guess there's really nothing I can say to you. You are mocking God if you think immodesty is "good" and modesty is "puritanical". It's becoming increasingly common for Christians to start contradicting and mocking several messages from the bible because they don't fit their own lusts and preferences. If I wanna believe in evolution, I'll try and find every possible passage in the book to defend my belief, regardless of what God plainly says in Genesis. Because after all, I am Man, and God is simply god, and I know more than him, because my heart (which God calls desperately wicked and deceitful) tells me so. I mean why resort to the scriptures for answers? It's just God's word. Human reasoning and feelings are sooo much better.

If you wanna blow off everything God says about modesty, chasity, purity, and holiness....mock it all as "old-fashioned" and "puritanical"...go for it. You reap what you sow. But just remember the bible says the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it? You might want to open your bible and begin reading about what God thinks of sexual immoralty and MODESTY. If you think the pictures you posted are God-pleasing....someone needs to rethink his spiritual position. It reall doesn't matter how many missions you go on or how many people you preach to....if you don't obey God's commands...all else is worthless.

Let's just do some reasoning here. Will you admit that fornication is a sin, and that, as God said, fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God? If so, will you admit that Jesus wasn't lying when he said sin starts in the heart, and it is not just having physical sex with a woman who's not your wife that's a sin....but even LUSTING after her within your heart? If so, will you admit that someone who looks at porn (or to be more politically correct for you...sexy naked
women) and lusting is a sin...based on the above? And if so, will you admit
that those who do so (without repenting) will not inherit the kingdom of God? Or...do you want to play the semantics game....and spew out things like "well God technically didnt say pornography!" or "well half a breast isn't a whole breast so it doesn't count as immodest!" or "well it doesn't count if the fornicating is done through a screen and not in real life!" etc etc etc

You can stretch it as much as you want to fit your own enlightened "modern Christian" theology, but the above photos are without doubt offensive to both God and true Christians who actually BELIEVE God when he says to be discreet, holy, and pure. I can't believe you just sit here and mock what GOD himself has said, all the while callin yourself a "conservative Christian". No wonder ubelievers these days are always calling Christians hypocritical. Hey Ted Haggard after all was just expressing his "unpuritanical" views on a male crack-selling prostitute! But shame on me, for thinking what he did was a sin. Don't I know God loves sexual freedom? How dare I.

True, sex is not something to be disgusted at...but cherished. Sex is a holy act of love and passion between MAN AND WIFE, not man and playboy model on the Internet. Any sexual activity, be it physical or mental, that occurs outside the marriage bed is a sin. And my dear christian, it is not some angry puritanical fanatic who says this- by God himself, in his word. I'm simply repeating it. But don't take my word for it...open the bible and read for yourself. And be open to being convicted, don't just try to believe whatever you want to believe.

Move this one to the whiny zone and we can discuss it there!

Gingersnap

10-08-2009, 11:42 PM

Although I enjoy woman in blue jeans I think the cutoff age should be 30. Iíve always liked a pretty girl in a pretty dress. At any special occasion or church I prefer that woman dress like ladies but you see it less and less all the time. You also see less men in church wearing suits, to me it shows a lack of respect to wear everyday street clothes for special occasions or church.

I wear skirts and dresses a lot. I'm well aware of benefits of it. I get treated more seriously in negotiations, meetings, open public forums, or presentations than my slacks-wearing counterparts do. On the non-working end of things, I get treated much better on the street, in restaurants, or by salespeople.

Now I'm not entirely certain why this would be. As a Traditional Christian woman I don't dress provocatively but dressing in a feminine but modest manner seems to make a big difference. Weirdly, I find that I am treated somewhat more courteously by other women when I dress in a feminine but not provocative way.

For me, jeans are for yard work, fiddling with the horses, or cleaning the garage. You can find a lot of comfortable but feminine casual dressing options without touching denim.

As someone who actually grew up in overalls and jeans because we had to, I'm okay with reserving that kind of stuff for heavy work and wearing better looking options when I can.

Rockntractor

10-08-2009, 11:48 PM

I have very beautiful twin sisters that have sewed all their lives. My mother and later both my sisters were Avon managers and have always been careful about their appearance so I am used to woman in dresses. I think people feel better about themselves and show more confidence when they dress nice whenever they can.

ExLiberal

10-08-2009, 11:50 PM

Gingersnap I agree with you. And I find it really refreshing to see women embracing femininity, without being provocative. There's a whole movement of Christian women who are returning back to feminine modest dress (see maidens of virtue etc) per the passages in Leviticus about male/female attire... and they're ditching practically anything resembling feminism. It's pretty fascinating. Some of them even go waaayyy back to like, bonnets and stuff lol. It's charming.

Gingersnap

10-09-2009, 12:00 AM

I have very beautiful twin sisters that have sewed all their lives my mother and later both my sisters were Avon managers and have always been careful about their appearance so I am used to woman in dresses. I think people feel better about themselves and show more confidence when they dress nice whenever they can.

I can tell you that I feel more confident in a tailored dress or a skirted suit than I do in jeans and T-shirt. I also sew and have the opportunity to create clothing that not only fits but plays up my own personal strong points.

Aside from the "boyfriend" shirt (which looks fabulous on all women), menswear translated into female is usually a disaster. Men aren't built like women. The jeans thing is a perfect example. I have no natural use for a fly. The fact that one is on my jeans merely draws attention to the fact that I don't have a dead straight, flat line from my belly button to my thighs. It's pretty flat but not guy-flat. How is this a good look for women? And I haven't even had kids. It's a complete disaster for a woman who has actually reproduced.

PoliCon

10-09-2009, 09:23 AM

I think people feel better about themselves and show more confidence when they dress nice whenever they can. As well they should. :)

PoliCon

10-09-2009, 09:24 AM

I can tell you that I feel more confident in a tailored dress or a skirted suit than I do in jeans and T-shirt. I also sew and have the opportunity to create clothing that not only fits but plays up my own personal strong points.

Aside from the "boyfriend" shirt (which looks fabulous on all women), menswear translated into female is usually a disaster. Men aren't built like women. The jeans thing is a perfect example. I have no natural use for a fly. The fact that one is on my jeans merely draws attention to the fact that I don't have a dead straight, flat line from my belly button to my thighs. It's pretty flat but not guy-flat. How is this a good look for women? And I haven't even had kids. It's a complete disaster for a woman who has actually reproduced.